Tuesday, March 3, 2015

WASHINGTON – Rush Limbaugh called it a “direct punch” to President Obama and “historically important.”

Praise is pouring in from Limbaugh and other conservatives for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before a joint session of the U.S. Congress, warning the administration and the world of the catastrophic perils of making a bad deal with Iran over its nuclear ambitions.

The conservative icon was effusive, calling the speech a “stunning” example of ” moral, ethical, and legal clarity.”

“Benjamin Netanyahu came to the United States today in a desperate plea for the world to focus, to get serious, and take notice of what is happening.”

“This highlights the hubris and arrogance of Obama, that speeches and words can tame tyrants.

“Well, after six years of Obama’s speeches and persuasion and ego and arrogance, the world is on fire. It is less safe than when Obama arrived on the scene.

“Even though Obama only has two more years in office, he still believes that the power of his personality and his community organizer skills or whatever, that he can persuade Iran after they get the nuke not to use it.”

Watch Netanyahu’s speech:

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, R-Calif., had a different take, tweeting:

“I was near tears throughout the prime minister’s speech — saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States as part of the P5 +1 nations, and saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation.”

Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky., went even further, comparing Netanyahu’s call for a tougher deal to a child who demands,” I want to go to Disneyland every day. eat ice cream and Coca Cola everyday and not go to school.”

The Democrat called the speech “fear mongering at its ultimate,” and “straight out of the Dick Cheney playbook.”

Yarmuth also complained, “I resent the condescending tone he used, basically indicating that he didn’t think anybody in Congress or the country understands the threat that a nuclear Iran poses.”

“I resent the fact he was telling us how to negotiate.”

And CNN chief political analyst Gloria Borger accused the Israeli prime minister of politicizing the Holocaust by mentioning it in his speech.

Former George W. Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer shot back that talking about “survival” was not political. “Talking about the Holocaust is the history of the Jewish people.”

Almost 60 Democrats skipped the speech and those who did attend often declined to join the many standings ovations given the prime minister.

But praise for from the right for the Israeli prime minister was overwhelming.

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., lauded Netanyahu and blasted the White House, saying, “Despite the shameful politicization by the White House of this incredibly important address, the prime minister provided important insight as to why all peaceful nations, not just Israel and the United States, should be extremely concerned by Iran’s nuclear pursuit.

“For months, President Obama has continued to cave to Iran, lifting numerous sanctions and weakening the terms of a potential nuclear agreement.

“Iranian officials have repeatedly called the United States the ‘Great Satan’ and just last week brazenly flaunted the country’s tests of new ‘strategic weapons.’

“Any nuclear agreement brokered by this administration would hinge on the belief that the extremist leaders in Iran will stick to their word and honor their obligations—a naïve position at best.”

Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla, said, “I hope the president was listening today and will reverse course on the unfortunate leverage he has given the government of Iran over the past year to continue pursuing its nuclear weapon’s capabilities.”

He added, “I stand with Netanyahu’s demands today that Iran’s government must change its behaviors. This must be a non-negotiable item in any agreement the United States seeks to reach with Iran, and anything short of it will be a bad deal, not only for Israel but for the West.”

Calling the speech “courageous” and “historic”, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, warned, “Concessions to Iran only empower Iran. They have a different motive than we would have and we can’t put ourselves into their minds and think that they think rationally.”

King warned the administration that if Israel has to take out Iran’s nuclear capacity by itself, “The United States of America had better stand with Israel every step of the way.

Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., warned, “Prime Minister Netanyahu’s powerful words clearly articulated the grave threat posed by a nuclear Iran. The stakes could not be higher for Israel, the United States, and our allies if Iran develops a nuclear weapon. At moments like this, party politics must take a backseat to the safety and security of our people.

“I hope President Obama will stop sending mixed messages about America’s longstanding and unwavering support for Israel and begin speaking with the same type of moral clarity that we heard today from Prime Minister Netanyahu.”

As Netanyahu made clear Israel would act alone, if necessary, to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, Fox News political commentator Charles Krauthammer observed that the key to the speech was the prime minister had demonstrated Israel would have the support of Congress if it were to act alone, even if it did not have the support of the president.

Iran expert Clare Lopez of the Center for Security Policy told WND that Netanyahu made an important distinction between America’s founding documents guaranteeing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the Iranian constitution which calls for death, jihad and the spread of revolution.

“I was struck by Bibi’s understanding it’s not just about the nuclear weapons but also the full scope of Iran’s support of terror, regional aggression, and the ‘gobbling up of countries’ around the Persian Gulf. His demand that the regime end all of its aggression first before concluding any agreement shows me he grasps the full scope of strategic implications to allowing Iranian behavior to go unchallenged and unchecked.”

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., urged Congress to “pass additional sanctions on Iran as soon as possible, and it should also ensure that any deal is submitted to Congress for a formal review.

“We must not trade away U.S. and Israeli security for vague commitments from a terrorist-sponsoring regime that has killed Americans and threatens to annihilate Israel.”

Rep. Randy Hultgren, R, Ill., recalled meeting with Netanyahu last summer and learning how “Israel’s security, the threats it continually faces from its enemies, and overall instability in the region really hit home when we could hear the distant rumble of explosions and see smoke rising on the horizon from the Syrian conflict.

“Israel’s own conflict with Hamas was a mere 35 miles away. Within that environment, Israeli leaders are forced to make difficult decisions every day about what needs to be done to protect their citizens and their way of life.

“Mr. Netanyahu’s perspective then and today was key to illuminating the issue for the Congress and the nation.”

The American Center for Law and Justice, or ACLJ, released a statement saying the speech provided a much needed warning about the dangers of a nuclear Iran.

“Prime Minister Netanyahu understands first-hand the dangers posed by a nuclear Iran – the very lives of the Jewish people and the future of the nation of Israel itself hang in the balance,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ.

“It is disturbing that President Obama met with Muslim leaders with ties to the radical terrorist group the Muslim Brotherhood, but refuses to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu. The administration should be embarrassed by the way it has snubbed the leader of Israel – our most trusted and important ally in the Middle East.

“It is both troubling and disappointing that the Obama administration chose to ignore this vital opportunity to stand with our ally in speaking out against terrorism and to assure the American people that securing a deal with Iran will not create a nuclear Iran.”

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said, “I was pleased to hear Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech to Congress today, and join him in calling for peace and standing together for our mutual interests. It is important to work together to prevent a nuclear Iran, and the spread of radical Islam.”

Follow Garth Kant @DCgarth

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/rush-netanyahu-hit-obama-with-direct-punch/#gMLKzqm1UplyrVOi.99

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to a joint session of Congress on March 3rd is a historic occasion. He is speaking directly to the elected representatives of the American people about the existential threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iranian Islamic theocracy. This threat is not only to the Jewish people, but to the entire free world. In that sense, Mr. Netanyahu is channeling Winston Churchill, whose warnings about the dangers of the rising threat of Nazi Germany were ignored and even mocked until the United Kingdom was on the brink of destruction. Churchill’s prescient words following Neville Chamberlain’s Munich appeasement apply equally today to the current negotiations with Iran and the concessions the Obama administration is considering: “And do not suppose that this is the end. This is the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup.”

President Obama is channeling Neville Chamberlain. He appears to want peace with Iran at any price. Even the usually liberal Washington Post stated in an editorial last month that “a process that began with the goal of eliminating Iran’s potential to produce nuclear weapons has evolved into a plan to tolerate and temporarily restrict that capability.”

For example, at the start of the negotiations, the United States sought to leave Iran with no more than 1,500 operational centrifuges. Now, according to leaked reports, Iran may be permitted to retain as much as 6500 operational centrifuges. A former CIA deputy director who served under President Obama, Michael Morell, stated recently: “If you are going to have a nuclear weapons program, 5,000 is pretty much the number you need.”

Prime Minister Netanyahu has reason to be worried, and is evidently frustrated that his warnings, like Churchill’s before World War II, have been systematically ignored by the Obama administration. Thus, he wants the chance to take his case directly to the co-equal legislative branch of the U.S. government. Obama’s response has been infantile. His administration has sunk to petty name-calling because Obama feels insulted by Prime Minister Netanyahu’s decision to accept Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to address Congress without running it by the White House first. The insults reached a new low last week when National Security Advisor Susan Rice accused the prime minister of engaging in conduct that is “destructive” to the historically close relationship between Israel and the United States. The only real destructiveness to the relationship is coming from Obama himself, whose anti-Israel bias was already evident in the early days of his first term as president and has accelerated ever since.

Prime Minister Netanyahu provided an inkling of his speech to Congress in remarks he made on Monday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). First, he made clear that his speech “is not intended to show any disrespect to President Obama or the esteemed office that he holds. I have great respect for both.” Unfortunately, however, Obama confuses Mr. Netanyahu’s speaking the truth to the American people with disrespect for Obama personally.

Second, Mr. Netanyahu emphasized that his congressional speech is “not intended to inject Israel into the American partisan debate.” Unfortunately, however, Obama tends to bring his Chicago-style partisanship to every debate, even though there is bi-partisan concern in Congress over the direction the negotiations with Iran are taking. Indeed, Obama is not only quarreling with Israel. He is quarreling with Congress. He has threatened to veto any bill that would impose more sanctions on Iran if the current talks fail. He is also intent on freezing Congress out of a meaningful role in connection with any agreement that may be reached with Iran as a result of the current negotiations.

The purpose of his congressional speech, the prime minister said in his remarks to AIPAC, is to highlight Iran’s threat to the very existence of Israel if it were to ever possess nuclear weapons. He wants to remind the American people of the kind of dangerous rogue regime Iran really is. As he told AIPAC, “Iran envelopes the entire world with its tentacles of terror. This is what Iran is doing now without nuclear weapons. Imagine what Iran would do with nuclear weapons.”

Prime Minister Netanyahu vowed that Israel would not remain passive in the face of such mortal danger to its very existence. “I plan to speak about an Iranian regime that is threatening to destroy Israel, that’s devouring country after country in the Middle East, that’s exporting terror throughout the world and that is developing, as we speak, the capacity to make nuclear weapons, lots of them,” he told AIPAC. “And this same Iran vows to annihilate Israel. If it develops nuclear weapons, it would have the means to achieve that goal. We must not let that happen.”

Too many times in the past, the Jewish state’s prime minister said, the Jewish people were defenseless against enemies determined to annihilate them. They had no place to go where they could seek protection. After the creation of the Jewish state in the wake of Hitler’s Holocaust, the “days when the Jewish people are passive in the face of threats to annihilate us, those days are over,” the prime minister declared. “Today in our sovereign state of Israel, we defend ourselves. And being able to defend ourselves, we ally with others, most importantly, the United States of America, to defend our common civilization against common threats.”

Mr. Netanyahu said that his disagreement with the Obama administration was over the best means to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear arms power. The Israeli leader is not against negotiations per se. He is against a bad, unverifiable deal with the Iranian regime. The reason is simple. Netanyahu does not trust the Iranian leaders to keep their word. Neither do most Americans. According to a Gallup poll taken from February 8 to February 11, 2015, “more than eight in 10 Americans view Iran unfavorably (84%).”

One thing that Iran does seem determined to do is to annihilate Israel and ultimately the United States. Just last year, while the negotiations with Iran were in progress, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, who must sign off on any nuclear deal, tweeted that “This barbaric, wolflike & infanticidal regime of #Israel which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated.” Last year, Khamenei also threatened the United States with continuing jihad until it is defeated: “Battle and jihad are endless because evil and its front continue to exist…This battle will only end when the society can get rid of the oppressors’ front with America at the head of it, which has expanded its claws on human mind, body and thought.”

Sadly, President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry appear to be all too trusting of Iran’s intentions. They claim that the Obama administration should be given the benefit of the doubt in the negotiations because Iran has already shown its good faith in purportedly complying with the interim agreement currently in place. However, the truth is that Iran is already showing the opposite — its word means very little.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which would be tasked with conducting widespread inspections to verify Iran’s compliance with any final agreement, has just re-confirmed that Iran is currently refusing to cooperate with IAEA inspectors in violation of the commitments it made in the November 2013 Joint Plan of Action:

“Concerning safeguards implementation in Iran, the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of nuclear material declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement. However, the Agency is not in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.

The Agency continues to undertake monitoring and verification in relation to the nuclear-related measures set out in the Joint Plan of Action agreed between Iran and the E3+3 countries.

Iran has yet to provide explanations that enable the Agency to clarify two outstanding practical measures agreed in May 2014 in the third step of the Framework for Cooperation. Iran also has still to propose new practical measures.

The Agency remains ready to accelerate the resolution of all outstanding issues under the Framework for Co-operation. This can be realised by increased co-operation by Iran and by the timely provision of access to all relevant information, documentation, sites, material and personnel in Iran, as requested by the Agency.”

Thus, Prime Minister Netanyahu has good reason to be skeptical of an agreement with Iran that would leave some of its uranium enrichment capacity intact and would rely on Iranian cooperation with the IAEA to verify its compliance with the terms of any final agreement. And he is understandably not willing to risk the very existence of his country on the word of a regime that has proven repeatedly its deceit and state sponsorship of terrorism.

Nevertheless, while acknowledging his disagreement with the Obama administration over the concessions that the administration appears ready to make, Mr. Netanyahu tried to put the disagreement into perspective in his remarks to AIPAC. He pointed to past disagreements between the U.S. and Israel going back to Israel’s founding. He added that despite such differences “we pray and hope and aspire for that same better world; because the values that unite us are much stronger than the differences that divide us; values like liberty, equality, justice, tolerance, compassion.”

The prime minister got a bit more colloquial when, speaking about the United States and Israel, he told AIPAC that “We’re like a family. We’re practically mishpocha.” And as with any family, there will be some inevitable differences of opinion.

Prime Minister Netanyahu explained that Israel may see things a bit differently than the U.S. government because “Israel lives in the world’s most dangerous neighborhood.” “While Israel is strong,” he said, “it’s much more vulnerable” to attacks than the far stronger United States. “American leaders worry about the security of their country,” he added. “Israeli leaders worry about the survival of their country.”

Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech to Congress is likely to elaborate on these themes. The prime minister will not shy away from speaking the truth about the grave risks from a bad deal with Iran, a regime that will exploit every loophole and insist on removal of sanctions while maintaining the capacity to ultimately develop and deliver nuclear weapons at a time of its choosing. However, we can also expect the prime minister to seek to transcend the current disagreements over the best way to deal with Iran by reminding his American audience of the overriding commonality of basic values between Israel and the United States and their common stakes in the struggle against Islamic barbarism.

While most of the members of Congress are expected to be in attendance to hear what Prime Minister Netanyahu has to say, at least 43 Democrats, including 5 Senators, have indicated their intention to boycott the speech, according to The Hill. They are taking their cue from the Obama administration. Vice President Joe Biden, who is also the president of the Senate, will stay away. President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are refusing to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu, on the flimsy excuse that they do not want to be seen as interfering with the Israeli election taking place in a couple of weeks.

Ethics-challenged Rep. Charles Rangel (N.Y.) explained his boycott of the speech by declaring on MSNBC that “I’m offended as an American.” Americans should be offended that Rep. Rangel is still a sitting congressman.

Senator Patrick Leahy (Vt.) called the timing of the speech a “tawdry and high-handed stunt.” Isn’t the content of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech far more important than the logistics concerning how it came about? By staying away, Senator Leahy is putting on his own stunt and embarrassing the leader of one of our closest allies, in order to soothe Obama’s hurt feelings.

Rep. Keith Ellison (Minn.), the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who voted against additional U.S. funding for the Iron Dome Missile Defense system at the end of last summer’s Operation Protective Edge, is also boycotting the speech as are other members of the Congressional Black Caucus. He is reported to have been one of the Democratic congressional leaders in opposition to the speech in the first place.

Rep. Ellison, a Muslim, thinks that our problems with Iran and the rest of the Muslim world are largely America’s own fault. Several years ago, for example, he denounced American “neocolonial” foreign policy and expressed understanding of Iran’s antipathy towards the United States at an event sponsored by the Network of Spiritual Progressives, the same left-wing organization that has just published a full-page ad denouncing Prime Minister Netanyahu in the New York Times.

The ad led with the headline “No, Mr. Netanyahu – you do not speak for American Jews and The American People Do Not Want a War with Iran.” The Network of Spiritual Progressives ad accused Prime Minister Netanyahu of seeking to “derail negotiations with Iran” over its nuclear enrichment program and pursuing a “strategy of domination over those identified as ‘evil others.’”

This canard is straight out of the Obama administration’s talking points. Indeed, the Network of Spiritual Progressives ad dutifully parroted the position of the Obama administration. The choice, as posited by the Obama administration and by its supporters in Congress and leftwing organizations such as the Network of Spiritual Progressives, is between war against Iran and a negotiated deal with Iran on the best terms Iran is willing to offer us. That is false. The real choice at this stage is between an effective agreement under which Iran will be required to truly disable its nuclear enrichment capability subject to unfettered international verification inspections, preventing Iran from ever being able to obtain a nuclear bomb, and, in the absence of such an agreement by a date certain, the ramping up of sanctions to destroy Iran’s economic infrastructure. If Iran were to enter into such an agreement, sanctions would be removed in phases keyed to verification of Iran’s compliance. However, Iran is insisting that all sanctions be lifted as a precondition to entering into any agreement. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on March 2nd that “If they want an agreement, sanctions must go… We believe all sanctions must be lifted.” Iran also refuses to include its missile systems as part of the negotiations while continuing to stonewall the IAEA on allowing an investigation of Iran’s alleged past nuclear weapons development programs.

Just as Barack Obama lied about his signature domestic achievement by saying that everyone could keep their existing insurance plans and doctors under Obamacare, Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry are lying about their intention to prevent Iran from producing a nuclear bomb. To the contrary, the administration is trying to push what appears to be a loophole-ridden framework agreement. Such an agreement would prematurely lift major elements of the sanctions, which will be irreversible, while allowing Iran an eventual pathway to achieving a nuclear arms capability after a set period, along with long-range missile delivery systems. Even then, any verification will depend on Iranian cooperation, which has already proven to be a charade. Kicking the can down the road will not protect anyone other than the Iranian jihadists.

Prime Minister Netanyahu may not be able to stop this appeasement in time. But he deserves credit for trying, not only for Israel’s sake but for the sake of the entire free world.

The Chinese military believes war in space is inevitable, so China is developing a space program advanced enough to disrupt U.S. military communications. That, according to a new report prepared by the U.S.-China Economic and Secretary Review Commission for Congress.

The report, compiled by the University of California’s Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC), was released by the commission on Monday and reveals that China is interested in attaining space supremacy, adding that Chinese military leaders think that control of space determines control of Earth.

Last week, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper informed the Senate Armed Services Committee that, “Chinese and Russian military leaders understand the unique information advantages afforded by space systems and services and are developing capabilities to deny access in a conflict. Chinese military writing highlights the need to interfere with, damage and destroy reconnaissance, navigation and communication satellites.”

Based on considerable research, IGCC believes that “China’s improving space capabilities have negative-sum consequences for U.S. military security.”

Although China has long been behind in the game to develop space capabilities, IGCC argues that the country has made stunning progress and is actively trying to shroud its movements and motives in secrecy, misleading outside observers on anti-satellite weapons’ testing.

Is the Pope Catholic? It may appear from the round headpiece which the Pope’s wear, a cap resembling the Jewish kippah, that the Pope is actually Jewish. Those disciples of Christ who will settle for nothing less than the truth will discover that the Catholics did not borrow this item of clothing from the Jews, nor did the Jews adopt it from the Roman Catholic church. Both Jews and Catholics had this item of clothing foisted upon them by Satan. The round cap is an ancient symbol of Sun worship which can be traced back to Rome, Egypt and Babylon.

In the image above, Pope Benedict XVI is shown holding a papal hat known as the Saturno in his hands while he wears a cap called the Solideo. These names point back to the origin of these headpieces. The round cap worn by popes, cardinals, bishops and other Roman Catholic clergy is commonly referred to as a zucchetto (little gourd). Zucchetto comes from the same linguistic root as zucchini, a popular variety of squash. If a man’s head may be compared to the shape of a gourd, then the name zucchetto makes sense. However, the round cap worn by Popes has a more ancient and more authentic name. It is referred to as the Solideo.

The vulgar explanation for those uninitiated to the mysteries of the Luciferian religion is that the name Solideo is derived from the Medieval Latin phrase “soli Deo sit gloria,” (to God alone be the glory), from the fact that the cap is removed by Roman Catholic clergy only on approaching the sanctuary. However, a secondary meaning which points to the true symbolism of this headpiece is discerned as we view Soli as a Latin prefix which combines with other words to denote a relationship to the Sun. The Latin name for the Sun is Sol. An example of an English word that begins with the prefix “soli” is “soliform,” which means “like the sun in appearance.” The Latin “deo” means “god.” It is the root of our English word “deity.” Combining “soli” and “deo” we arrive at solideo, “solar deity,” or “Sun god.”

Although the Roman Catholics may present an alternate and disingenuous explanation for the origin of the solideo cap’s name to obscure the fact that it derives from Sun worship, it is not as easy to hide the meaning of Saturno. This papal hat’s name is clearly a reference to the planet Saturn, whose image it resembles. It is of interest to note that Pope’s wear red Saturnos, while Cardinals and other Roman Catholic clerics wear black Saturnos. These are two colors traditionally associated with Satan of whom Saturn serves as a type.

A Roman Catholic Cardinal’s Black Saturno and Saturn

Another name for the Saturno is Capello Romano, literally “Roman hat” in the Italian language. This association of the Saturnian hat design with Rome is readily explained as one remembers that Rome was formerly called Saturnia, and Italy has from ancient times been known as “the Saturnian land.” The worship of Saturn was so associated with Rome that references to Saturn became inextricably linked to the land and the people. A Saturn shaped hat is therefore described as a Roman hat.

As was mentioned previously, Numa, the second King of Rome, laid the foundation for the College of Pontiffs. This was the ruling ecclesiastical body of Rome. In essence the College of Pontiffs served as the priestly caste. The Roman equivalent to the High Priest in their pagan religion was called the Pontifex Maximus. It is well known that the Romans worshiped the host of heaven. The Sun, the Moon, and the planets all figured in their worship as is evidenced by the names of their deities Saturn, Mars, Venus, Pluto, Neptune, Jupiter, etc.. This worship of the celestial bodies and the deities they represent is further evinced in the names of the days of the week of the Roman calendar, an association that continues in use to this day, though some of the names are obscured by their Anglo-Saxon equivalents.

Sun-day (Day devoted to the worship of the Sun, the Roman Apollo)Mon-day (Day devoted to the worship of the Moon, the Roman Diana)Tues-day (Day devoted to the worship of the god Tyr, or Tiews, the Roman Mars)Wednes-day (Day devoted to the worship of Woden, the Roman Mercury)Thurs-day (Day devoted to the worship of Thor, the Roman Jupiter)Fri-day (Day devoted to the worship of Freya, the Roman Venus)Satur-Day (Day devoted to the worship of Saturn)

The pontiffs were the guardians and purveyors of the worship of the gods of Rome. The College of Pontiffs is preserved to this day in the Roman Catholic Church as the Pope has for many centuries borne the title of Pontifex Maximus. To this day, schools that train men for the Roman Catholic priesthood are referred to as Pontifical Colleges. Those who love truth will readily discover that the rites, symbols, clerical attire, holidays, and deities worshiped under the name of Roman Catholicism, all derive from the idolatrous worship of false gods. The Pope may be Catholic, but he certainly is not Christian. He is the Pontifex Maximus, “the king of heathendom.”

Pope Francis Meeting with Other Idolatrous Religious Leaders

You may note the banner behind these world religious leaders. It reads “TOGETHER THE FAITHS OF THE WORLD UNITE.” Ecumenical meetings, joining all the religions of the world under the umbrella of Roman Catholicism, are quite common. At the meeting pictured above, which occurred in December 2014, the Archbishop of Canterbury, head of the Anglican Church of England, was in attendance. Also present were representatives of the Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, and Eastern Orthodox religions. From the time of the Roman College of Pontiffs’ foundation by King Numa of Rome in the 7th or 8th century B.C., their mode of operation has been one of assimilation, the merging together of disparate deities and their often irreconcilable beliefs. Beginning with Emperor Constantine in the 4th century A.D., this practice of assimilation included Christianity, as it was merged with the worship of Sol Invictus and other Roman deities.

It is interesting to note that Numa appointed four pontifexes, with the Pontifex Maximus bringing to total to five. The Pontifex Maximus was always counted separately from the other Pontiffs, as he held a position superior to the other Pontiffs. In the year B.C. 300, the Ogulnian law raised the number of pontiffs to eight, and adding the Pontifex Maximus, the number of Pontiffs was nine. In this we see a parallel to the Hanukiah which has eight candles, with a ninth candle that stands apart from the others.

Over the course of more than a millennia from the founding of the College of Pontiffs, the gods of Rome waxed and waned. Some deities would recede in importance, to be replaced with others. Due to this, the College of Pontiffs saw great changes in their roles as guardians of the state religion. In the third and fourth centuries A.D., during a time when Christianity was spreading throughout the Roman Empire, the worship of Sol, the Sun, gained a place of ascendancy. The Sun had been worshiped from the time of the early Roman Republic, but its importance as a deity had been less than that of other tutelary gods of Rome (gods associated with specific locations who were viewed as the guardians of the people who dwelt there).

After his victories in the East, the Emperor Aurelian thoroughly reformed the Roman cult of Sol, elevating the sun-god to one of the premier divinities of the Empire. Where previously priests of Sol had been simply sacerdotes (clergymen) and tended to belong to lower ranks of Roman society, they were now pontifices and members of the new college of pontifices instituted by Aurelian. Every pontifex of Sol was a member of the senatorial elite, indicating that the priesthood of Sol was now highly prestigious... Aurelian also built a new temple for Sol, bringing the total number of temples for the god in Rome to (at least) four He also instituted games in honor of the sun god, held every four years from AD 274 onwards.[Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Invictus]

It is important to note the date of this ascension of the worship of Sol. Fifty years after the Roman Emperor Aurelian popularized the worship of the Sun/Sol, Emperor Constantine, who was also a Sun worshiper, would give Christianity official status as a religion recognized by the Roman state. Thus, Christianity was added to the mix of religions overseen by the College of Pontiffs at a time when the worship of the Sun was ascendant. This explains why there is such a preponderance of symbols, rites, and holidays relating to Solar worship in the apostatized Christianity of Rome. Constantine, although giving Christianity imperial recognition, was not a Christian. He continued to be a devoted worshiper of Sol Invictus, the Unconquerable Sun, throughout his life. On March 7, 321 A.D., Emperor Constantine decreed “dies Solis” (the day of the sun), or “Sunday,” to be the official Roman day of rest.

On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits because it often happens that another day is not suitable for grain-sowing or vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost.

This edict of the Roman Emperor was viewed favorably by much of the Christian church. The writings of the early church fathers reveal that Sunday for more than a century prior to this edict had gained a place of prominence among gentile Christians as a day of corporate worship. It was referred to as “the Lord’s Day” in light of this being the day of the week which Yahshua rose from the grave. In the early days of the church which was born in Jerusalem, Sunday held no special place in the traditions of the disciples of Christ. Being Jews, they maintained the tradition of meeting on the Jewish Sabbath, but they did not exclusively meet on this date. Luke records that the disciples of Christ met together every day.

Acts 2:46-47So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

Acts 18:4And [Paul] was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.

Since the Sabbath had been a sacred day of worship for the Jews from ancient times, it is to be expected that the early church would continue to meet on this day. The church in its early days was composed primarily, if not entirely, of Jewish men and women. Over time, as more Gentile believers began to come to faith in the Jewish Messiah, and perhaps as a reaction to the Judaisers who were trying to induce Gentile Christians to receive circumcision and embrace the Law of Moses, there was a rejection of the Jewish Sabbath as the weekly meeting day of the church. The first day of the week became a popular day of meeting, with numerous early church fathers asserting that this day was chosen because it was the day upon which Christ arose from the dead.

Matthew 28:1-6Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. And his appearance was like lightning, and his garment as white as snow; and the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men. And the angel answered and said to the women, “Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Yahshua who has been crucified. He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said.”

However, this was NOT the reason that Constantine legislated that the weekly day of rest and worship in Rome would be Sunday. Constantine described this day (dies Solis) as “the venerable day of the Sun (not Son).” Just six years prior to this edict, Constantine had a triumphal arch constructed in Rome. It was positioned to align with the colossal statue of Sol Invictus by the Colosseum. As the people approached this arch down the major thoroughfare leading to it, they would find framed behind the arch the image of Sol Invictus, the deity known as the Unconquerable Sun.

Roman Colosseum and Statue of Sol Invictus, the Sun-god

Arch of Constantine and Roman Colosseum Today

Although the statue of Sol Invictus no longer remains, it is apparent that Constantine intended to draw attention to this deity, and to demonstrate his devotion to it. Constantine also had coins minted with his own likeness on one side, and an image of Sol Invictus on the reverse.

Constantine and Sol Invictus

Coinage bearing the images of Constantine and Sol Invictus continued to be minted until 325 or 326 A.D., four or five years after his edict declaring Sunday to be the official day of rest and worship in the Roman Empire. Constantine is often described as the first “Christian Emperor of Rome,” but any relationship between Constantine and faith in Christ was feigned. Constantine refused to receive Christian baptism throughout his life, only assenting to it in the year 337 A.D. as he lay on his deathbed. Observing that Yahshua commanded the first act of obedience denoting one’s embrace of Christian discipleship to be the act of baptism, we can discern that throughout his life Constantine remained a pagan, being a devoted worshiper of the Sun.

Most claims of Constantine having converted to Christianity are derived from Eusebius’ writings. Eusebius was a contemporary of the Emperor and met him on a number of occasions. He states in his Life of Constantine, that the Emperor became a Christian when he called upon his god (likely Sol Invictus) for help just before a great battle. The story relates that Constantine received a sign as he saw a cross illuminated in the heavens and heard a voice saying, “In this sign conquer.” The year was 312 A.D.. Going to battle and conquering an enemy under the sign of a cross is not to be confused with coming to conviction of one’s sins, and the knowledge of Yahshua as the Savior of the world. Observing that Constantine for decades after this date demonstrated a continuing patronage of Sol Invictus, the lie of his conversion is exposed.

Constantine did present himself as a benefactor and protector of the Christian faith, but his motives were arguably political. Christianity was growing rapidly in the empire and as Pontifex Maximus, Constantine wanted to retain the titular headship of all of the religions of Rome. By declaring Christianity an official religion of Rome, he brought it under the authority of the College of Pontiffs, of which he was the head. Constantine also provided the Christian bishops with a salary from the coffers of the Roman government. In doing so he obtained prestige among, and influence over, the leadership of the Christian church. This authority was exercised when in the year 325 A.D. Constantine convened and attended a Council of Christian bishops which was held in the city of Nicaea. Thus, for the first time, the Pontifex Maximus of Rome was asserting a leadership role among the Christian church. The Christian bishops acquiesced to this act of usurpation, setting a course by which the official state religion of Christianity in the Roman Empire would be thoroughly suborned as it became leavened with the idolatrous trappings of the College of Pontiffs.

So complete would be the corruption of Christianity in Rome after it received the investiture of imperial authority that in ensuing centuries the Pope’s of Rome, bearing the mantle of Pontifex Maximus, would outlaw the reading of the Bible by the common man, and become the chief persecutor of the free exrcise of Christianity for more than a millennia. It is estimated that more than 50 million Europeans were slain by the Roman Catholic Church through her inquisitions and various pogroms from the year 606 A.D. up until the middle of the 19th century. An additional 15 million were slain in South America, and 4 million elsewhere. John was shown a vision of what the church would become under Rome’s auspices, an image he described in the following passage.

Revelation 17:3-6And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness; and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast, full of blasphemous names, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a gold cup full of abominations and of the unclean things of her immorality, and upon her forehead a name was written, a mystery, "BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH." And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the witnesses of Yahshua. And when I saw her, I marveled greatly (was astonished).

It was a remarkable transformation that Satan wrought when he transformed the face of Christianity from a collection of common people led by fishermen and other tradesmen (apostles and teachers without costume or buildings), men whose only religious heritage came from the pages of the Old Testament, morphing them into the abomination that was to become the Roman Catholic Church.

St. Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican

The focal point of Vatican City, the global headquarters of the Roman Catholic Church, is Saint Peter’s Basilica, a location where millions of Catholic pilgrims gather annually. Standing outside the Basilica at the center of Saint Peter’s Square, is an obelisk, an ancient symbol of Baal and Sun worship. The obelisk was relocated from Heliopolis, the City of the Sun, in Egypt. The design of the Basilica with its massive dome, was modeled after the famous Roman Pantheon.

The heavens have from ancient times been represented as a dome. Following is an image of the famous Zodiac from the temple complex of Denderah, Egypt. It has been colored to match the original appearance when it was constructed, possibly in the first century B.C..

Zodiac of Denderah

This relief and painting was located on the ceiling of one of the temple buildings at Denderah. The images represent the constellations of the heavens. These images, and the beings they represent, have been worshiped from the time men first began to multiply upon the earth. The Egyptians represented the heavens as a circle, for it would be left to the Romans to perfect the construction of arches and domes. Under the Romans the circle of the heavens began to be represented as the vault of the heavens. Domes were constructed atop temples to signify the worship of the heavenly host. One of the most famous, and certainly the best preserved example of such a building, is the Pantheon constructed in the city of Rome during the reign of Augustus Caesar (27 B.C. - 14 A.D). The Pantheon burned on two occasions and was rebuilt. The current structure is dated to approximately 126 A.D. when the Emperor Hadrian had it rebuilt.

Pantheon (Rome)

Numerous historians assert that the shape of the Pantheon’s dome was designed as a representation of the heavens. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the word Pantheon means “All Gods,” from “pan” meaning “all,” and “theon” meaning “gods.” There was also a large amount of statuary in the vicinity of the Pantheon representing the various gods of Rome.

At the peak of the Pantheon’s dome is a round hole which allows the light of the Sun to stream into this pagan temple. The hole is called an oculus. The Latin word oculus means “eye.” Symbolically, this eye serves to allow the entrance of the light of the Sun, bringing illumination even as the human eye lets in light. In the Bible, the human body is compared to a temple in which God dwells. Applying this analogy to the Pantheon as a temple, we observe that it is illuminated by the light of the Sun entering through its eye. This brings to mind the following words of Yahshua.

Matthew 6:22-23“The lamp of the body is the eye; if therefore your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!”

The light entering the Pantheon was not viewed as the light of Christ, who is the true “Light of the world” (John 8:12, 9:5). In the year 609 A.D. the Byzantine Emperor Phocas gave the Pantheon to Pope Boniface the IV to be used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Romans rededicated the building to Mary and the martyrs. This continued its role as a house of idolatry, for Mary is to the Roman Catholics the Queen of Heaven. Never did any Greek or Roman deity receive greater veneration and worship than the Roman Catholic Mary.

Mary - Queen of Heaven

The foundation stone for Saint Peter’s Basilica was laid in the year 1506. Pope Julius envisioned building the grandest building in Christendom. He initiated a competition to come up with a design for this audacious building. The winner was Donato Bramante whose design resembled an enormous Greek cross with a massive dome patterned after the Pantheon. This seems fitting since the Roman Catholic Church has from its beginning been a profane and idolatrous mixture of the worship of many deities.

Throne of Saint Peter (Latin Cathedra Petri)

One of the most revered works of art in the Romish church’s most famous house of worship is the Throne of Saint Peter. Parishioners seated in the pews face directly at the wall holding this ornate throne over which is a glorious sunburst design. It should be noted that the throne is empty. There is no image of Peter sitting in this throne, a fact belying its true meaning. The only object “enthroned” here is the glorious Sun which sits just above the throne. This image of the Sun is the equivalent of the statue of Sol Invictus which Emperor Constantine drew attention to with his magnificent arch.

Inside Saint Peter’s Basilica we can see that a similar layout greets those who walk down the main aisle of this temple. In the place of the Arch of Constantine we see the Baldacchino perfectly framing the image of the Sun between its massive columns. Just as there are images of Sol Invictus on Constantine’s Arch, there are images of the Sun carved into the Baldacchino.

The photo above shows one of many sunburst images adorning the Baldacchino. A wider view also shows the golden orb above the Baldacchino and the many images of honey bees which were associated with various gods and goddesses, including Apollo, the Roman Sun god. The Priestess of Delphi where Apollo was worshiped was referred to as a bee.

Further adding to the idolatrous associations of this profane symbol is the fact that it was constructed of 927 tons of dark bronze which was stripped from the roof of the Pantheon in the year 1633. Thus, the very material from which it was constructed had a history of idolatrous usage. Hundreds of pages could be filled documenting the idolatrous images and rites of Roman Catholicism. What becomes readily apparent is that the Pope, the man who bears the title of Pontifex Maximus today, continues to serve as the chief proponent of the gods of ancient Rome. He remains “the king of heathendom.”

Although the focus of this book is not Roman Catholicism, much can be discerned about Satan’s success in corrupting Judaism as one looks at the abomination of Rome which is Satan’s corruption of Christianity. Talmudic and Kabbalistic Judaism has departed as far from the faith of Abraham and Moses as Roman Catholicism has deviated from the faith of the apostles of Christ. Satan has been successful in suborning both Judaism and Christianity. In many instances he has introduced identical elements of his Luciferian worship into both groups. One of the most visible evidences of this common adoption of Satanic symbols are the caps worn by both the Roman Catholic clergy and Jewish believers.

Pope Francis with a Jewish Rabbi and Muslim Cleric

The Hebrew word kippah means “dome.” Seeing that the Jewish kippah has no foundation in the Bible, either in the Old Testament, or the New Testament, we must look to other sources to discover its origin. The Jews themselves admit that the kippah has no Biblical foundation.

The tradition to wear a kippah is not derived from any biblical passage. Rather, it is a custom which evolved as a sign of our recognition that there is Someone “above” us who watches our every act.

The Talmud (Shabbat 156b) relates that a woman was once told by astrologers that her son is destined to be a thief. To prevent this from happening, she insisted that he always have his head covered, to remind him of G-d’s presence and instill within him the fear of heaven. Once, while sitting under a palm tree, his headcovering fell off. He was suddenly overcome by an urge to eat a fruit from the tree, which did not belong to him. It was then that he realized the strong effect which the wearing of a kippah had on him.[Source: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/483387/jewish/Why-Do-We-Wear-a-Kippah.htm]

What is observed in this explanation is that the wearing of the kippah was originated by the Jewish rabbis and the practice is supported in the Talmud. The origin of the practice lies entirely outside the instruction of the Bible. Following is another excerpt, this time from the Jewish Mag website.

The kippah does... have some basis in Talmudic literature, where it is associated with reverence for God. In Kiddushin 31a, for example, R. Honah ben Joshua declares that he "never walked four cubits with his head uncovered... Because the Divine Presence is always over my head." In like manner, tractate Shabbat 156b states, "Cover your head in order that the fear of heaven may be upon you"; and in Berachot 60b, it is written, "When he spreads a cloth upon his head he should say: Blessed are you (God)... Who crowns Israel with splendor..."

In the Middle Ages, French and Spanish rabbis introduced the practice of covering one's head during prayer and Torah study, and Maimonides (1135-1204) similarly ruled that a Jewish man should cover his head during prayer (Mishne Torah, Ahavah, Hilkhot Tefilah 5:5)[Source: http://www.jewishmag.com/122mag/kippa%5Ckippa.htm]

Again we see the Talmud being the authority behind this practice. As has been mentioned previously, the Talmud is the written form of the Oral Torah, the traditions of the rabbis which in a great many instances contradict the word of God. Yahshua rebuked the Jews for placing the commandments of men above the commandments of Yahweh “thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down...” (Mark 7:13). It is arguable that if a practice did not originate in the mind of Yahweh, it ultimately originated in the mind of Satan who induced mankind to think and act independently of his Creator. History repeatedly reveals that Satan has been successful in introducing profane elements of idolatrous practices into Judaism and Christianity. Let us therefore examine the evidence which might lead us to the origin and meaning of the dome shaped cap worn by both Jews and Roman Catholic clergy.

In looking into the origin of the kippah, one is struck between the similarity between this cap worn on the head of Jewish men and the dome which is so common an element in the construction of synagogues (and Roman Catholic sanctuaries).

Synagogue Domes and Kippot (Plural of Kippah)

Clearly, there is an intended relationship between the caps that the Jews wear on their heads, and the domes that sit atop many of their synagogues. They are both dome shapes and many synagogue domes and kippot are adorned with the image of a star. In the Latin language, the word “dominum” means “lord,” or “master.” Thus we see that both the kippah and the domes of their synagogues serve as a symbol of their subjection to some “lord,” or “master.” This is also the meaning of a headcovering in Paul’s treatment of the matter in I Corinthians chapter 11.

I Corinthians 11:4-7, 10Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying, disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying, disgraces her head; for she is one and the same with her whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man... For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

The tradition of the apostolic church is quite clear. Men were not to have anything on their heads while praying or prophesying. In contrast, the women of the church were to have their heads covered. If a person walks into a Messianic fellowship (and many of the Hebrew Roots churches) they will find just the opposite experience. The men will have their heads covered, and the women will be uncovered.

The “lord,” or “master” which Jewish men signify their subservience to by wearing the dome shaped kippah is not Christ, for the Talmudic rabbis who introduced the wearing of the kippot to the Jews renounced Yahshua, rejecting Him as their promised Messiah. Consequently, the kippah is an anti-Christ symbol.

Even as the highest place of worship in Roman Catholicism is Saint Peter’s Basilica, the holiest place of worship for the Jews is undoubtedly the Temple in Jerusalem. Today, all that remains of the Jewish Temple is a portion of the undergirding Western Wall. This has become a holy shrine to both Jews and Christians. It is common to see videos of men, all of whom have their heads covered, praying at the Western Wall. They are frequently seen bobbing their heads and bodies as if prostrating toward the wall. As they stand before the Western Wall, these men are facing East, the direction associated with the rising Sun. Their nodding takes on a form of obeisance to the Sun, much as the prophet Ezekiel described seeing 25 men between the porch and the altar of the Temple prostrating themselves toward the East as they worshiped the Sun (Ezekiel 8:16).

If this connection between modern practice and Ezekiel’s vision sounds somewhat far-fetched, consider that it is a requirement that every man who approaches the Western Wall must have his head covered. Kippot are available for those men who did not bring some form of headcovering.

Visitors Wearing Kippot Distributed to Uncovered Men

There is no need to issue kippot to Roman Popes when they visit the Wall. They bring their own.

Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis at the Western Wall

Brothers and sisters, do not be mistaken. The cap on the heads of the Popes is a Solideo. It is a reference to the solar deity. The Pope’s are facing the East, toward the rising Sun, as they say their prayers at this Jewish holy site. Don’t despair, however, if you plan a visit to this Jewish historic site. If you don’t want to wear the kippot, you can bring your own hat, or opt for another common Jewish headcovering.

Orthodox Jew at Western Wall

Like the Popes, the visitor to the Western Wall has a choice. Saturno or Solideo. Having observed that a great many idolatrous images lead back to Satan, I would suggest that Sun worship is representative of Lucifer, the “light bearer.” This is the devil in his guise as a benevolent being, the friend of humanity bearing gifts and imparting knowledge. Saturn is a reference to this same being’s dark and evil nature. Saturn is the equivalent of Satan which means “adversary.”

Even among occult practitioners we see this dual nature of the fallen angel who is the god of this world. Members of Wicca, modern day witchcraft, and many Neo-Pagans deny any affiliation with Satan worship. They embrace Lucifer as an angel of light. They have chose the pentagram with the point facing up to represent their affiliation with the positive aspects of Lucifer. Satan worshipers on the other hand, freely embrace all the evil and darkness of Satan. They have chosen the inverted pentragram as their symbol.

Even as the orientation of a five pointed star can denote whether a person is a devotee to Lucifer as a messenger of light, or Satan as a dark worker of evil (the feigned difference between white witchcraft and black magic), so we see that devotion to different aspects of Lucifer/Satan can be indicated by the style of hat a person wears.

Pope Benedict XVI Wearing Saturno

In the image directly above, Pope Benedict XVI is removing the Saturno, revealing the Solideo he was wearing beneath it. The Solideo is always worn, no matter what headwear the Pope wears above it. In this instance, Pope Benedict removed the Saturno as he arrived at Saint Peter’s Square to lead his weekly general audience. Thus Satan switches hats to appear as a messenger of light.

II Corinthians 11:13-15For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their deeds.

Perhaps illustrative of our point of the Saturno and Solideo representing a dark and light side of Satan/Lucifer, Pope Benedict XVI was often criticized for a lack of affability. He was viewed as cold, harsh, legalistic, and he was blamed for a decline in the popularity of Roman Catholicism. In contrast, Pope Francis is viewed as a benefactor of the people. He is shown constantly to be a servant to humanity, full of compassion, and one who places people above policy. To my knowledge, he has never worn the Saturno in public as Pope Benedict did.

Throughout this writing I have mentioned that many who are attracted to the Hebrew Roots Movement landed in this camp after becoming repulsed by the corruption of modern mainline Christianity. They were seeking a return to a more authentic practice of the Christian faith. The Hebrew Roots teachers present their practice and doctrines as being a return to the faith of Christ and His apostles. In many instances, however, what is sold as a return to the Hebraic Roots of the Old Testament has become horribly muddled with the rites and symbols of apostate Judaism. It is vital that Christians today examine all rites, symbols, holidays, and doctrines carefully, for Satan is very active in pouring forth a flood of deception to sweep away the masses to destruction.

Do not underestimate the success Satan has had in introducing much that is profane and unholy into the practice of Christianity. He has introduced the Saturnalia to the church as Christmas, and to the Jews as Hanukkah. He has replaced Passover with Easter, and the Passover Lamb with the Easter ham. He has induced churches to place obelisks atop their buildings without Christians ever questioning why. He has led the Jews to render the holy Scriptures null and void as they have placed a greater veneration on the words of the rabbis recorded in the Mishna and the Talmud than they do upon the writings of prophets and apostles who were moved by the Spirit of God. Is it too difficult to accept that the little round caps worn by Popish followers and Jews alike, both groups having a long history of suppressing the truth and embracing idolatry, are just one more Luciferian symbol Satan has introduced to those who were receptive to his influence?

A top US official Tuesday warned that the current tensions between traditional allies US and Israel could last until the end of the Obama administration in 2016.

"There are moments of significant agreement and then there are moments of tactical disagreement," US deputy secretary of state Antony Blinken told French radio station Europe 1. "That's the nature of things and I imagine that will continue for the last two years of the Obama administration," added Blinken, who spoke in French.

Kerry in Geneva for nuclear talks (Photo: EPA)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is poised to go to Capitol Hill on Tuesday for another round in an increasingly heated battle with the White House over Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Obama on Monday lashed out at the Israeli prime minister, pointing to Netanyahu's attacks on a previous interim US-Iran deal that paved the way for this week's ongoing talks in Switzerland.

צילום: רויטרס

Video: Reuters

Blinken stressed that Obama had spent more time in contact with Netanyahu than any other world leader but warned that the Israeli prime minister's speech could have "a bit of a corrosive effect" on ties.

"It does not create trust," said the diplomat, stressing nevertheless that "the U.S. commitment to Israel's security will not change."

Quelling Saudis fears of Iran

Iran and the United States Tuesday returned to the negotiating table for a second day of talks, as a political storm over the issue unfolded thousands of miles away in Washington.

By the shores of Lake Geneva in the town of Montreux, US Secretary of State John Kerry met with his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif as they try to pin down a political framework for a deal to rein in Tehran's nuclear programme by a March 31 deadline. US officials said they began their talks at 9:30 am (8:30 am GMT).

Saudi King Salman (Photo: MCT)

After months of discussions, the two men launched this latest round of talks Monday, and are due to continue negotiating until Wednesday afternoon, when Kerry will fly to Riyadh to meet King Salman to reassure the king that any nuclear deal with Iran is in Saudi Arabia's interest, despite the country's fears it may boost its rival's support for Shi'ite Muslim interests in the region.

Convincing Saudi Arabia to accept any agreed nuclear deal is important to President Barack Obama because he needs Riyadh to work closely with Washington on a host of regional policies and to maintain its role as a moderating influence in oil markets.

The main critics of the US push for a nuclear deal are Israel and congressional Republicans. But Saudi Arabia is skeptical too that any agreement would only let Iran devote more cash and energy to Shi'ite proxies in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen, escalating conflicts.

"The Saudis fear Obama will give the Iranians a deal whatever the cost because it is important for his legacy, and that Iran will get a certain regional status in exchange for an agreement," said a diplomat in the Gulf.

Kerry met Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in Montreux, Switzerland, on Monday at the start of up to three days of negotiations to try to meet a self-imposed deadline to achieve a framework agreement by the end of March.

He will then brief Saudi Arabia's new king on the talks, and meet other senior Gulf officials later in the week, in an attempt to convince them that a diplomatic solution to the long-festering crisis over Iran's atomic program is in that country's interest too.

Saudi's anxiety about an agreement has fuelled a flurry of diplomacy in recent days to bolster unity among Sunni states in the Middle East in the face of shared threats including Iran, analysts say.

Washington shares Arab concerns about Iran's role, particularly in Syria and Yemen and through its ties to Lebanon's Hezbollah militia, a senior Obama administration official said, on condition of anonymity, but added that there was a "very substantial" U.S. military commitment to Gulf allies.

"What we need to do is have the appropriate strategies to counter any provocative and destabilizing behavior... it's going to depend on what can we do effectively in places like Syria and Yemen," he said.

US officials are unwilling however to outline what strategies might curb Iran's regional influence, and Washington's record in Iraq, Syria and Yemen - where armed Iranian allies have since flourished - has caused Saudi Arabia great anxiety.

The country's trust in Washington during the Iran talks is also still recovering from the sudden move in late 2013 towards a nuclear deal, when Saudi officials were blindsided by the revelation of months of secret talks between the US and Iran.

"They are very, very nervous about the way we are moving forward," said a Western diplomat who tracks the issue closely and said Riyadh feared a "lose-lose situation" in which Iran either gained an atomic weapon or was freed from sanctions.

Riyadh has long been worried about Iran gaining nuclear weapons capability, something that once led King Abdullah to ask Washington to "cut off the head of the snake" by striking Iran, diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks showed.Credit to Ynet